A lawyer for the U.S. Justice Department told a federal judge Thursday that President Donald Trump was legally exercising his executive authority by prohibiting lawyers with Houston-based law firm Susman Godfrey from entering federal buildings or representing clients who had contracts with the federal government and suspending their security clearances.
U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan of Washington, D.C., repeatedly asked U.S. Deputy Associate Attorney General Richard Lawson to provide evidence supporting the president’s April 9 executive order condemning Susman Godfrey for racial discrimination in its hiring practices and for “spearheading efforts to weaponize the American legal system and degrading the quality of American elections.”
“I’m just not seeing any evidence,” Judge AliKhan stated when seeking specifics about the details of the allegations in President Trump’s executive order.
Lawson repeatedly responded, “It’s executive discretion, your honor.”
Susman Godfrey is asking Judge AliKhan to grant summary judgment in its lawsuit against the Trump Administration, declaring the executive orders unconstitutional and permanently barring the federal government from enforcing the orders.
Donald Verrilli, who represents Susman Godfrey in the litigation, told Judge AliKhan that the executive orders targeting his client and other large corporate law firms are designed to punish them for representing clients and causes that President Trump dislikes. Verrilli pointed to last Friday’s ruling by another federal judge, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, who granted summary judgment to Perkins Coie in its legal battle against an almost identical executive order signed by the president.
“The whole point of the Susman Godfrey executive order is to intimidate law firms,” Verrilli told Judge AliKhan. “That is unconstitutional. Full stop. No matter what the motivation is.”
MORE: Susman Godfrey executive order litigation timeline
When Lawson again argued that the executive order concerns national security matters and that it is covered by “executive discretion,” Verrilli pointed to President Trump’s executive order against the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, which made the “exact same” claims and also suspended its lawyers’ security clearance.
Verrilli told the judge that the president rescinded the order when the law firm agreed to do $40 million in free legal work on causes favored by the administration. Verrilli said there were “no changes in circumstances regarding the trustworthiness of the [Paul Weiss] lawyers.”
During the hearing, which lasted more than an hour and a half, Judge AliKhan repeatedly asked Lawson to provide evidence of racial discrimination by Susman Godfrey.
Lawson responded that President Trump’s condemnation of Susman Godfrey for “illegal DEI discrimination” is in section one of the executive order, which Lawson argued was “only commentary” and did not specify any actions to be taken against the law firm.
But the judge noted that a significant part of the Trump administration’s brief focused on Susman Godfrey’s diversity efforts as illegal and against the best interest of the federal government.
“I just don’t see any evidence of that,” Judge AliKhan said.
The judge later said that she was “just trying to find out where the lines are” between the president’s discretionary authority and his acting in retaliation and violating Susman Godfrey’s rights.
Susman Godfrey is represented in the lawsuit by lawyers for Munger, Tolles & Olson.
The case is Susman Godfrey v. The Executive Office of the President. U.S. District Court of Washington, D.C. Case No. 1:25—cv—01107.